While I have ****all knowledge of American politics nor pretend to have any, I did the political compass thing a few days ago and I find that despite not being exactly congruent to him, It's still much much closer than to any politician I've ever seen before.

As I said earlier in this thread, it's hard to tell whether Paul holds libertarian views or is just a staunch constitutionalist who wants to pass the buck to state governments. I'm inclined to believe he's more of the latter, and we'd probably see less libertarianism if he got in as the state governments he'd leave key decisions to would tend to be even more authoritarian than the federal government has been.

There's a pretty fundamental difference between "we should let individuals make their own moral decisions on this issue" and "we should let the states tell the people what their morals on this issue should be and enforce those decisions themselves", even though both subscribe to the Ron Paul "we as the federal government should do nothing here" mantra. Paul appeals to the growing libertarian movement in the US and he'd be mad not to play up to that a bit, but I think he advocates states' rights more than individual liberties.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

As I said earlier in this thread, it's hard to tell whether Paul holds libertarian views or is just a staunch constitutionalist who wants to pass the buck to state governments. I'm inclined to believe he's more of the latter, and we'd probably see less libertarianism if he got in as the state governments he'd leave key decisions to would tend to be even more authoritarian than the federal government has been.

There's a pretty fundamental difference between "we should let individuals make their own moral decisions on this issue" and "we should let the states tell the people what their morals on this issue should be and enforce those decisions themselves", even though both subscribe to the Ron Paul "we as the federal government should do nothing here" mantra. Paul appeals to the growing libertarian movement in the US and he'd be mad not to play up to that a bit, but I think he advocates states' rights more than individual liberties.

Yeah, agreed with every word.

A true libertarian was Barry Goldwater, but even then he was very hawkish on foreign policy issues.

His views on evolution are also ****ed considering he is a doctor, hope that is him just pandering though.

Originally Posted by morgieb

A true libertarian was Barry Goldwater, but even then he was very hawkish on foreign policy issues.

Was having a conversation with someone recently and we both were thinking that Goldwater who was nicknamed "Mr. Conservative", would be nailed as a liberal communist by all the mental midgets if he was alive and running for office.
He was further left than Obama on some social issues.

For as long as there is limited overs cricket - of ten, twenty or fifty overs - there will remain the Sri Lankan spinners' mid-innings choke

His views on evolution are also ****ed considering he is a doctor, hope that is him just pandering though.

Was having a conversation with someone recently and we both were thinking that Goldwater who was nicknamed "Mr. Conservative", would be nailed as a liberal communist by all the mental midgets if he was alive and running for office.
He was further left than Obama on some social issues.

Now, I'm no pedant, but...

"we use the word Day to describe hours and movements of the earth around the sun" - zorax

I don't understand your point - I'm the biggest supporter of the rights of individuals, the reason 'states' even come into play are purely due to the structure of the country as it existed back then. Hell, the constitution wasn't even really 'supposed' to apply to the states individually (e.g they could restrict the first amendment if they so chose) - thankfully, we've moved past that.

You clearly don't: see property rights argument we had several pages back. The states were to be seen as separate entities forfeiting certain rights to a central government for outlined reasons. The philosophy behind federal govt. is a bit more elaborate than that though. You keep seeing the change to a more central government as legitimate and wanted; when that in itself is a debate.

State legislatures can be corrupted just as much as national ones, and often they are much worse because there is almost no transparency and no one is held accountable (ask who their state representative is). It's not about trusting someone vs. not, it's about whether I want relevant policy decided at the state level or the national level and I choose the latter.

So they can be just as corrupted...yet they are far easily overturned and whatever problems which may have happened can be isolated. If there are benefits, they can be copied elsewhere. It is the maximum benefit with the smallest cost possible. That side simply does not exist with a central govt. This all in essence means; giving the power to the states serves as a better protection than the central power. It means your argument really is a weak argument. Unless you think having tyrannical rule is a great argument. I can see the positives only in very few cases where immediacy is important and going through all states will be a hassle. But even then, there are ways around that too. It just isn't a very good argument where one favours individual liberty. You're asking them to live in America or don't, whereas the opposing side at worst is asking you to change states.

It is totally about trust. The intentions of programs are a matter of trust. How can you trust one set of individuals if all their proposed benefits are for only a small segment of society whilst taxing the larger, unfortunate, set. People do not bow to power for their detriment. It is essentially a contract to give away some freedoms for some benefits. It is riddled with implicit trust that the people ruling you do fair by you and abide by those conditions.

The only systems which really do not need a whole lot of trust, if any, are those with no government involvement at all and input is voluntary - like the free market system. Because then, you can only attract people by doing what they want.

And yes, I do have more of a problem with Paul's beliefs - but I've always said that. And yes I'm a centralist - I don't want my state to ****ing decide anything but the difference is if there is someone who believes in states rights, that's fine and good for him, but for most of them, they will give into practical considerations and maybe I can work with them to get some of what I want in return for my support (by 'me' I mean if I were a legislator looking to pass something).

I will repeat: you have yet to exemplify a concern you have with one of Paul's stances of which he, in your mind, is illogically immovable. I assume the latter part of the previous comment because if he was logically and rationally consistent you wouldn't want him to change. So what is it? It just appears to me that you are a centralist and that is about it. Well, that is only a means for ends; so you really should have very little disagreement with Paul. You can also meet the same ends under a Paul administration, but it will be the state that exercises that power.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

As I said earlier in this thread, it's hard to tell whether Paul holds libertarian views or is just a staunch constitutionalist who wants to pass the buck to state governments. I'm inclined to believe he's more of the latter, and we'd probably see less libertarianism if he got in as the state governments he'd leave key decisions to would tend to be even more authoritarian than the federal government has been.

There's a pretty fundamental difference between "we should let individuals make their own moral decisions on this issue" and "we should let the states tell the people what their morals on this issue should be and enforce those decisions themselves", even though both subscribe to the Ron Paul "we as the federal government should do nothing here" mantra. Paul appeals to the growing libertarian movement in the US and he'd be mad not to play up to that a bit, but I think he advocates states' rights more than individual liberties.

He is both, but his personal beliefs he divides with his belief in the constitution's intentions. A libertarian society may be against many government programs, whereas the constitution has no problem with them occurring at the State level. Philosophically he may align himself with the libertarian views that regulation and government intervention is unnecessary and hindrance, but he knows the powers he has to bring forth that change and the powers that he doesn't have.

In a way, he is a special blend. It means in a Paul government, if California want they can create a laissez-faire heaven whilst Oregan can be a socialist stronghold. And the states, part of a union, will compete and the best model will thrive and it can be adopted. It lets people freely decide where they want to live. I'd comment here that history generally shows that people move to where they are the freest.

It is, ironically (ironic, in the sense that we are talking about Paul being very strict in his views), a bit of a compromise. But it lets free people decide what they want to do in a more localised form of government. Those governments tend to be the most economically savvy - because they are more in turne with their constituents' needs - as well as the more readily changeable. It is not some monolithic government miles away, but just by your door.

His views on evolution are also ****ed considering he is a doctor, hope that is him just pandering though.

I don't know what he is thinking there or what his argument is. I haven't read a detailed explanation for his views there. I'd like to hear it since he is generally onpoint elsewhere. Even when I disagree with him, I tend to see a strong foothold in logic for his views. On that one though...er, no. Thankfully, he doesn't see it as the Federal government's business to really interfere in things like that nor do I think it is a pressing issue.

Yes, obviously the Bible in Santorum's world doesn't really say anything about feeding the poor. I remember the passage where it talks about how hedge fund managers will find it easy to get into heaven.

The guy just openly bull****s. for a long time I found it hard to believe he wasn't a parody.

"We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit, not for the Earth's benefit," Santorum told an audience in Colorado last week, according to the Colorado Independent.

Santorum has argued that climate change is beyond human control, and any attempts to mitigate it are part of a left-wing political agenda.

"[Climate change] is an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life," he said.

So just so we're clear:

> We are somehow at war with the Earth itself. Polluting it is our way of showing it who's boss, and actually benefits us.

> Motives like carbon offsetting and researching renewable energy are "controlling people's lives". Completely dictating other people's *** lives in the name of a very questionable interpretation of a 2000-year old collection of books is not.